The plaintiffs’ filed suit in the Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, alleging her decedent developed mesothelioma as a result of occupational exposure to asbestos while he worked as a machinist on various U.S. Navy ships manufactured by the defendants.
The case was removed to federal court and Electric Boat and General Dynamics moved for summary judgment on all of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court denied the motions. The defendants’ included in their motions the argument that strict liability claims could not be brought against them. Relying on Mack v. General Electric Co., the defendants argued that manufacturers of ship’s various components could be held liable but the ship itself could not be construed as a “product.”
The court noted that the standard for a Motion for Reconsideration is that a party may seek reconsideration of a decision on any motion on the grounds of: a) a material difference in the fact or law from that presented to the court…that…could not have been known to the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or b) the emergence of new material facts or change of law occurring after the time of such decision, or c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the court before such decision.
The court examined McIndoe v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc. as a guide for the facts in the instant case. In McIndoe, a similar fact pattern existed. In that case, the plaintiff alleged that he was exposed to asbestos containing pipe insulation during maintenance work. The court was tasked with deciding whether or not the ships were considered products within the context of strict liability. The court found that ships were not products “as warships were not distributed commercially.” In the instant case, the court stated that summary judgment was denied not because of an analysis of whether a ship was a product but rather because a genuine issue as to material fact existed. Specifically, the court found a material fact in dispute as to whether other asbestos containing parts or products were involved.
The defendants argued that the only product involved was a “ship” based on the plaintiffs’ discovery responses which stated as such. However, the court disagreed and found that even if this admission were true, it was not a “failure to consider material facts.” Further, the plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for reconsideration cited that their claims were also premised on the allegation that the defendants manufactured the pipe insulation that was installed on the ship. Applying the McIndoe case, the court clarified that the defendants cannot be held strictly liable for manufacturing a navy ship. However, McIndoe does not preclude that a defendant may be liable for a specific defective product, “even when that product is supplied to the military.” Consequently, McIndoe does not require the court to revise its prior order.